Extended Period of Limitation
10 articles
One Tax Period, One Notice: Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench Reaffirms That a Section 74 GST Notice Cannot Club Multiple Financial Years, Pending a Larger Bench Reference
A show cause notice covering financial years 2019-20 to 2021-22, alleging suppression of taxable value, was quashed because the CGST Act ties assessment and its five-year limitation to each financial year separately. The Bombay High Court held itself bound by its own precedent over a contrary Delhi High Court view — even after the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that view — but preserved the Revenue's liberty to revive the case if a pending Larger Bench reference goes the other way.
13 min readDepartmental Knowledge Defeats the Extended Period: Calcutta High Court Quashes a Central Excise Demand Founded on the Assessee's Own Cost Audit Report
Hindalco Industries faced a Central Excise demand of Rs. 6,29,920 built entirely on its own Cost Audit Report, three years after departmental officers had personally witnessed the very stock shortages now called suppression. The Calcutta High Court held the extended period of limitation unavailable: what the proviso to Section 11A requires is a deliberate act of concealment by the assessee, not the mere absence of departmental knowledge, and a demand cannot simultaneously rest on a statutory record and be founded on its suppression.
13 min readNo Duty, No Section 28 Jurisdiction: CESTAT Chennai's Toyota Kirloskar Ruling on Sensor Classification and the Limits of Customs Reassessment
A CESTAT Chennai final order on customs classification of automotive sensors doubles as a ruling on the outer limits of Section 28 of the Customs Act — holding that a completed, nil-duty self-assessment cannot be reopened under Section 28 at all, and that no interest attaches to differential IGST for periods before the Customs Tariff Act's borrowing provision was amended to include interest.
13 min readWhose Delay Is It? Delhi High Court Holds a ₹20 Crore Customs Demand Timely Because the Assessee's Own Writ Stay Suspended the Section 28(9) Clock
GKEM International argued that a ₹20.18 crore customs demand was time-barred because its show cause notice sat in the department's 'Call Book' for years. The Delhi High Court disagreed: the delay was occasioned by the assessee's own writ petition and interim stay, which is exactly the circumstance Section 28(9A) excludes from the limitation clock — and the Call Book entry was merely the administrative record of that fact, not its source.
14 min readConsistency Is Sacrosanct in Revenue Matters: Bombay High Court Bars a Rs. 21.92 Crore Service Tax Demand the Department Had Already Dropped Against an Identically Placed Assessee
A show cause notice issued roughly two years after the transactions it targeted, confirming Rs. 21.92 crore in service tax, interest and penalty on a brewery's contract-bottling arrangement with its brand owner. The Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's finding that the demand was time-barred, holding that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a specific averment of fraud or suppression in the show cause notice, and that the Department could not press an appeal against one assessee after having accepted an identical Tribunal order in favour of another.
14 min readA Department That Once Agreed With You Cannot Later Call You a Suppressor: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Service Tax Penalty on Construction Services to Government Hospitals and Educational Institutions
Two officers of the Service Tax Department told the audit wing, in writing, that a construction consultant's work for government hospitals and colleges was not taxable. Nineteen years and one appeal later, the Delhi High Court held that the Department could not turn around and call the same conduct wilful suppression warranting penalty, even after upholding the underlying demand for the last nine months of a five-year dispute.
13 min readEighty Percent Sugar, No Marketability Defence: CESTAT Holds Captively Consumed Sugar Syrup Dutiable Even Though the Biscuits It Went Into Were Exempt
A biscuit manufacturer argued its captively consumed sugar syrup, made to a proprietary formula and never sold, was not 'goods' at all. Thirteen years after the show cause notice, CESTAT Ahmedabad disagreed, applying the Supreme Court's marketability test and a bright-line sugar-content threshold from tribunal precedent, while remanding to let the company claim Cenvat credit on the inputs consumed.
14 min readBona Fide Buyer, Defaulting Seller: Calcutta High Court Curbs the Mechanical Use of Section 74 to Deny GST Input Tax Credit
A logistics company claimed input tax credit on invoices from a supplier who later stopped filing returns. The department invoked Section 74's fraud-based extended period to raise a Rs. 6.3 crore demand two years after ordinary limitation had run out. The Calcutta High Court quashed the order, applying binding precedent that a buyer's credit cannot be held hostage to a seller's default, and that dressing up an ordinary demand as fraud does not extend the clock.
13 min readNexus, Not Gross Value: CESTAT Strips Hostel, Mess and Study-Material Fees Out of Commercial Coaching Service Tax
A coaching institute billed tuition, hostel, mess and study-material fees separately for over a decade. The department taxed the lot as one bundle. CESTAT Hyderabad's Final Order works through nine appeals to hold that only what has a real nexus with coaching can be taxed as commercial coaching service — and that repeating a demand the department has already litigated cannot be dressed up as suppression.
14 min readBland Recitals Will Not Do: Supreme Court Quashes a Section 74 GST Notice for Want of Foundational Facts of Fraud or Suppression
An audit objection, a notice parked in the department's own 'call book', and a bare assertion of suppression were not enough to invoke GST's extended limitation period. The Supreme Court draws a sharp line between reciting the words of Section 74 and actually pleading the facts that justify it.
13 min read